Slashdot Log In
Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Feb 10, 2007 08:32 PM
from the hang-up-or-takedown dept.
from the hang-up-or-takedown dept.
Two stories in the news offer contrasting approaches by Web companies to
questions of free speech. First YouTube: reader skraps notes that the Google
property has recently banned the popular atheist commentator Nick
Gisburne. Gisburne had been posting videos with logical arguments
against Christian beliefs; but when he
turned his attention to Islam (mirror of Gisburne's video by another
user), YouTube pulled the plug, saying: 'After being flagged by members
of the YouTube community, and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below
has been removed due to its inappropriate nature. Due to your repeated
attempts to upload inappropriate videos, your account now been
permanently disabled, and your videos have been taken down.' Amazon.com
provides a second example of how to react to questions of free speech.
Reader theodp sends along a story in
TheStreet.com about how Amazon hung up
on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of
selling animal-fighting magazines. The article notes that issues of free
speech are rarely cut-and-dried, and that Amazon is doing itself no
favors by going
up against the Humane Society.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by KD : updated Nick Gisburne link to new account.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by KD : updated Nick Gisburne link to new account.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't religion, it was Islam; (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam; (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam; (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam; (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam; (Score:5, Insightful)
Your facts suffer from selection bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph [wikipedia.org]
http://www.answers.com/topic/james-charles-kopp [answers.com]
The KKK
The IRA
et. alia. usw. et cetera et cetera et cetera
Parent
Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam; (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... yes they do. Someone else pointed out some fine examples... but aborition clincs [religioustolerance.org] are a big issue among many "Christian" groups.
Any fundamental religious group scares me.
Parent
Re:Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Religion (Score:5, Funny)
It can't be that hard, there are plenty of made up religions that have protected status standing. I mean if Science Fiction writers can make up religions, why can Slashdotters?
How about making up a religion called Objectivity? You can have the Church of Objectivity, the members would be Objectivists, and the main tenant would be that to get to Heaven you must point out the failings of other religions.
You can tell people that this is the Word of God, because he told me so. (We were having lunch one day, at Hooters. He hadn't been here for a while, and He actually snorted milkshake out of his nose when I described to him the current dogma and beliefs of the predominant religions of the world.)
Yea, it is written, let it be so. Amen.
Parent
Re:Religion (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Or rather: (Score:5, Funny)
2. And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord over all the earth when it was suited to Man.
3. And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.
etc.
Parent
Re:Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you start decapitating people, no one is going to take you seriously. No one takes christians seriously now that they no longer set fire to people who disagree with them.
Parent
Re:Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes it's political correctness, sometimes it's fear for your safety.
Parent
Re:Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Unfortunately, this isn't unique... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Religion (Score:5, Informative)
For example, one of the slides at 5:06 references Sura 28:62-64. In my copy of (Yusuf Ali translation) the Quran, it is apparent that Gisbourne went ahead and helpfully replaced "them" with "Christians". Looking at the passage, it doesn't even appear to me that this is a correct paraphrase since I think Muhammad was addressing polytheists, not Christians. But I'm not an expert, so I don't know. Either way, Gisbourne made a logic jump there.
I'm just refuting any claim that these are "quotes".
Parent
Quran Translations vary widely (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some other translations of that same verse (Al-Qasas 28:62):
Khalifa: The day will come when He calls upon them, saying, "Where are those idols you had set up beside Me?"
Pickthall: On the day when He will call unto them and say: Where are My partners whom ye imagined?
Shakir: And on the day when He will call them and say: Where are those whom you deemed to be My associates?
Sher Ali: And on that day HE will call to them, and say, `Where are those whom you allege to be my associates?'
Yusuf Ali: That Day (God) will call to them, and say "Where are my 'partners'?- whom ye imagined (to be such)?"
Transliteration: Wayawma yunadeehim fayaqoolu ayna shuraka-iya allatheena kuntum tazAAumoona
Parent
Re:Quran Translations vary widely (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Koran has a meaning, it can be translated, and of the millions of English-speaking Muslims in the world there must be a few who are up to the job of translating it correctly.
The variations between the examples you give are small and in any case doctrinally relatively trivial. I'd be more interested in seeing the various translations of things like 3:118, the gist of which is: "Do not be friends with unbelievers. They all hate you." Or 2:222-224, which has some pretty harsh things to say about women, likening them to fields that a man can go into any any time he chooses.
The difficulty of translation always gets raised any time anyone mentions any of the terrible things the Koran actually says that Muslims and Muslim sympathizers would like it not to say. It gets tiresome, particularly as it always gets raised as if it were a new and interesting issue instead of an old and tired one. Muslims have been complaining about this for decades. Don't you think its about time that some Muslim leaders got together and produced an authorized edition? Bible translations vary widely too, and there are a few cases where even good translations differ on substantive matters, but the gist of the sentiment is almost always clear: God loves everyone, unbelievers will burn forever in hell, stuff like that. It isn't self-consistent, but there is no major problem with what the text actually says. Whereas no one seems to agree on even the basic sense of the most trivial passages in the Koran.
Of course, for Muslims to get together and produce an authorized translation would first require Muslims to get together, which is something they appear to have a lot of trouble doing for purposes other than burning embassies because they have been offended by some silly cartoon ~0:-{=
Parent
Re:Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Now wait a little (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now wait a little (Score:5, Insightful)
Your link makes it sound as though there's some Church Lady in the back of every Wal-Mart Distribution Center who is bleeping out the F-Bombs on each individual CD that comes her way. And her neighbor with an airbrush, blurring out all the nasty cover art. No, they come to Wal-Mart pre-censored, and not by Wal-Mart executives. If you want to blam someone, blame the artists who are willing to violate their artistic integrity for the sales boost they get from having their albums sold at Wal-Mart.
Don't kid yourself. Amazon doing what they think is best for themselves, as is Wal-Mart.
Parent
Re:Now wait a little (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, no. Amazon can within very broad limits decide what gets said and not on their site. "Free speech" is not a right you have on private property. They could pull most any kind of comments at impunity and your rights would pretty much extend to taking your comment business elsewehere.
Of course, the Human Society is claiming the material is illegal, and if that's true it adds a whole other aspect to the situation - but I don't know enough about whatever laws may apply so I can't comment on that.
More to the point, the Humane Society is not the arbiter of what is legal and not. And Amazon is not the publisher of the material. If the Humane Society has issues with the legality, they should get in contact with the police or a prosecutor, and address the magazine publishers, not Amazon.
They're just using harassment as a way to stop ideas they don't like - which, in the long run, probably harms their cause more than it helps. I'm very much against blood sport, but right now I feel like laying down a bet on a dogfight just to spite these hateful morons.
Parent
Google being evil (Score:5, Insightful)
What I heard from a former employee (Score:5, Informative)
That's "former employee", so it's not like he's defending the source of his paycheck.
Parent
Freedom of speech is from *GOVT* censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of speech is from *GOVT* censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Freedom of speech is from *GOVT* censorship (Score:5, Informative)
Any large community site like Youtube is full of copyrighted material, which means it is committing massive copyright infringement by allowing people to download those materials. The DMCA says (paraphrased) "don't look closely at what's on your site, and pull down promptly anything that someone claims is theirs, if you obey those rules then you can't be sued".
So it's wrong to say that Youtube can do whatever they like simply because it's their private site. They can of course, but only if they don't care about being massively sued.
Parent
Re:Freedom of speech is from *GOVT* censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and that's what the video apparently was doing. I mean, how does showing a sequence of direct quotes from the main religious text--nothing more--amount to "slander, libel, or incitement"?
In fact, the problem here is on the side of the religious nuts: they are offended by any criticism of their religion. Should we limit free speech according to whether the target of criticism is offended? I don't think so.
Parent
Yeah, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazon can cut off anyone they wish, so can Google. Google is not obligated to do a damn thing concerning free speech. They can censor anyone they want because they are a corporation, not the government. The law/Constitution isn't going to protect someone from posting in a forum/newsgroup ran by Google. Too bad, that's what you accept when you post in Google's forum/newsgroup; a place owned by essentially a private party.
The only repercussions from something like this (private censorship) is the free market system. Boycott, attention getting, etc. But you can't force them to make them accept your free speech.
Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation.
That's because everyone perpetually equates "free speech" with "censorship". Censorship CAN be a violation of your right to free speech, but not always- and this case is a perfect example. Others say that censorship cannot be done by a corporation; that's also wrong. Everything you watch on TV is run past network censors. Anything you watch in the movie theater, also (most likely) run past censors.
Youtube's actions are censorship. They are not violation of anyone's "free speech" rights. Nothing stops the gent in question from posting his commentary on his own website, or publishing commentary in any number of forms of other media (for example, printing a booklet or printing a newsletter.) If the government comes knocking on his door and takes his computer and printer and says, "You can't print this, Muslims don't like it", that is a violation of his right to free speech.
Parent
This isn't about free speech idiots (Score:5, Informative)
As for the Amazon case, sure, you have a right to call and complain. Nothing says that Amazon has to actually listen to you.
In the end, these aren't issues of free speech. These are people getting their panties in a knot because someone wouldn't listen to them.
Re:This isn't about free speech idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way, exactly, is Google taking away somebody's rights? Please, I'd like to know.
Parent
Re:This isn't about free speech idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly what right is a corporation or person taking away from you when it decides to hang up on your phone call? Surely you do not have a right to force someone else to listen to your speech.
Similarly with Youtube. There isn't anything in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to use somebody else's web site, printing press or megaphone to distribute your viewpoint. Such a concept would in fact infringe on other rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Constitional ban on bills of attainder. You can speak all you want - how you get your message to others is YOUR problem, not someone else's just because they have an jim-dandy established distribution channel that you might want to use to put forth your opinion because it would be a lot more work for you to build your own distribution channel.
The founders certainly DID NOT mean to abrogate property rights when they cast the First Amendment. Just because Youtube is a convenient forum you are not suddenly granted an inalienable right to use it however you want irrespective of the rights of the owners. If you want to get your message out there is no guarantee by anyone that they have to pay out (Youtube like any other web site has to pay for the bandwidth it uses) to give you a free ride for your crackpot theories.
Your concept of corporate power holding back your free speach is also ridiculous. Exactly what is Youtube doing that prevents you from setting up your own web site and publicizing it? Nothing.
They had no idea that the internet would put the ability to curtain free speech
Exactly what does the internet do to curtain(sic) free speach? To me it looks like it does exactly the opposite. $8.95 for a domain name and $10/month for a hosting package and you can spout off in almost unlimited fashion. In fact never before has it been as easy to get out whatever outlandish idea you might have.
Had they known that, I suspect rather strongly that they would have phrased the Bill of Rights differently.
In exactly what way? Even in the days of the Founders channels of distribution like the press were owned by individuals. In fact since such channels were more limited than what we have now it was much harder to get an idea out without significant financial backing.
The rights of corporations are secondary to the rights of individuals.
Poppycock. The two are exaactly the same. Corporations are the private property of individuals. By threating the two differently you are depriving these individuals of their property rights without due legal process as guaranteed by the Constitution. Forcing a corporation by law to carry your video is EXACTLY the same thing as forcing Joe Smith to pay a tax that will give you financial support for your package of wacko ideas. The idea is totally unacceptable and contrary to all basic ideas of life in modern society.
Parent
WTF? A new minor majority (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I think I get the gist of the OP but let me see if I get this straight.
You can make a movie called White Guys can't Jump but you can't make a movie called Black Guys can't swim (fill in swim with whatever).
You can make "logical arguments" against Christianity. You can even make jokes about the religion and it's Members.
But as soon as you breath a word against the Muslims you are silenced.
We have a new minority in America. It's call the muslims. Please, if you are a male white American, add to your list of people not to offend: the Muslims. But remember, anyone can publicly deride the whites, males, christians but never speak ill of the jews, muslims, blacks (oh shit! sorry -- African American), mexicans, or anyone else who didn't have an ancestoral basis in North Western Europe along the paternal lines of the family tree.
It's getting kind of crazy around here with all the people who are demanding both freedom of speech and respect for their own beliefs.
Like the old Irish atheist joke (Score:4, Funny)
The religeon defines a lot of our culture even if we don't believe it. It depends on how this is done - going after extreme loonies doesn't make the entire thing invalid.
Why is google making this choice? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
I can tell you: Christianity is used to being harrassed, and Christianity has shown itself to be nothing, if not resilient to this kind of thing. Whereas Islam is extremely poor at handling criticism; you might find yourself dead, burned, having some bizarre rushdie-like death sentence on you, or being chased by a bunch of brainwashed muslims.
So no, you CAN'T make fun of Islam or point out the stupidity of living 14th century dogma in the 21st century.
It's telling too, because a confident religion doesn't care what is said about it. Witness what's been said about Christianity! No, it's only a scared religion which reacts poorly to criticism - and the main reason (I maintain) is because even "devout" Muslims KNOW that what they've been told is a load of stinking horse shit, but it is impossible to speak out against it.
Loud voices openly criticising Islam might start the tide against Islam, and that would result in the modernisation of that religion, and those who currently hold the power in Islam would see their power vanish almost instantly. So this issue continues to be about the power Islam wields over women, and other people. It's certainly got nothing to do with religion per se, in my view.
Re:It's the Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with Western secularism. You can thank ATHEISTS like Thomas Paine for the freedom of religion we enjoy in the West.
Christians INVENTED the concept of "heresy", murdering people who believe very slightly differently than the way you do. The Catholic church became the dominate Christian sect by slaughtering everyone else. Christianity, much like Islam, has spread almost entirely through the sword. "Convert or die" has been the Christian mantra since at least the 4th century.
Everyone here is missing the context. YouTube has been banning anti-Muslim videos much more often than anti-Christian videos because the anti-Muslim videos have been MUCH more offensive and racist. Videos accusing Muslims of raping children, using children as suicide bombers, claims that all Muslims are suicide bombers, graphics of Muslims murdering Christians and Jews, truly offensive depictions of Mohammed (like graphics of Mohammed raping children), calling Arabs "towel heads" and "sand niggers", etc. Similar video simply has not been posted anywhere NEAR as often with Christianity and other religions, but when it is, it's banned too.
And this hasn't happened just once, it's happened thousands of times. YouTube has rules against posting offensive and racist videos. I haven't seen the video that was banned, but even assuming it was fairly tame one can easily see how YouTube might remove it in a knee-jerk manner.
Parent
Re:It's the Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Persecution of Islam (Score:5, Interesting)
Islamic countries have practiced institutionalized religious intolerance against unbelievers long before any decently founded complaint of "oppression" could be launched. (I.e. British and French (semi-)occupation of the non-Saudi ME between roughly 1920-1946 after the Ottoman empire collapsed. Also, the brunt of Islamic intolerance is not directed at westerners, but at any indigenous apostates.
"because of the actions of a few"
Well, the Talibs weren't *that* few. The idiots in the White House who thought the Iraq war was a good idea were indeed initially rather few in number though.
"the Christian world is bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan"
For the last couple of years, most of the bombing has been from various indigenous groups that blast the crap out of each other for religous and / or ethnic reasons. Mass bombing is not presently seen as an effective counterinsurgency tactic. (It can work, but it causes too much bad press)
Parent
Criticism of religion is a time-honoured right. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is our RIGHT to criticize ANY religion, be it in the spirit of Martin Luther, or in the spirit of Frederick Neitzche. It doesn't matter.
Now, to ban a man for making a video of quotes from a book, simply the quotes, and calling that "inappropriate hate speech", that is a fucking travesty, and a symptom of everything that's wrong with giving certain groups special treatment. It may not be a violation of any of his rights, since Youtube is a private entity, but it's still a bitter pill to swallow. A man has been silenced because quoting from a book was deemed "inappropriate".
I suppose nobody at Youtube figured that, if the quotes are inappropriate, maybe it's the author(s) of the book itself that should be blamed, and not the messenger. No, truth takes a back seat to making damned sure nobody could possibly be offended by anything.
The difference (Score:5, Insightful)
-----
Martin Scorsese releases a film that was mildly heretical to Christianity. Some Christians stand around with placards protesting. Some boycott his movie. Most yawned and flip the newspaper to page two.
The very same year Salman Rushdie publishes a book that is mildly heretical to Islam. He received death threats and had to go into hiding. Noted peace activist turned Mulsim, Cat "Peace Train" Stevens, affirms that Rushdie should be killed. A fatwah was issued against booksellers (I was one) selling the tome. To this day, Rushdie remains in hiding.
-----
Over a decade later another movie was released that was mildly heretical to Christianity. A bunch of Christians boycotted it. A few sermons were preached from a few pulpits. That was it. Dale Brown and Tom Hanks made a lot of money.
Near the same time, a Danish newspaper publishes some cartoons, a few of which were mildly heretical to Islam. The Islamic world threw a shit fit, and engaged in violent protest for weeks. People died. Newpapers around the world tossed out principles held since the dawn of the Enlightenment and refused to print the cartoons.
-----
An opera that is planning to portray the severed heads of religious leaders is cancelled out of fear of violence... not because of the head of Jesus, but because of the head of Mohammed.
-----
Are you beginning to see the picture? Certainly Christianity has a checkered past, but it embraced the Enlightenment and Reformation. It has moved past its sins. But Islam remains rooted in a violent medieval mindset.
I used to think it was just a small group of fanatic extremist Muslims that were the problem. But then I started to realize that mainstream Islam was not condemning the fanatics. They were being awfully quiet. Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over suicide bombings? Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over Hamas and PLO thuggery? Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over Wahabism? Over femail genital mutilation? Over "honor" killings? Over the torture and murder of homosexuals?
Western Civilization needs to STOP pretending that Islam is a religion of peace. It needs to stop sheltering Islam in the blanket of political correctness. It needs to stop pretending that the camel isn't in the tent. It needs to take a break from bashing Christianity and recognize where the real danger lies.
Re:The difference (Score:5, Informative)
That could be a bit of revisionist history. Wikipedia has that quote, and some more [wikipedia.org]:
"[Rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie] I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing."
"[If Rushdie turned up at my doorstep looking for help] I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is."
Those are based on a recorded TV show, referenced by a New York Times article. I checked the New York Times reference.
The New York Times is not a tabloid. And the fact remains that this "kind and gentle person" believes that a man should be put to death for blasphemy, because that is what his religion tells him.
Parent
Re:Other arguments against Christians. (Score:5, Informative)
That video is about Mormons, not Christians. It's true that Mormons claim to be Christians, but that claim is very controversial and is not accepted by most of mainstream Christianity. There are literally thousands of different Christian groups, and to some extent they all reject some of the beliefs of others, but most groups accept that most of the others are in fact Christians. The hit rate with Mormonism, however, is very low, in both directions. That is, most Christian groups do not accept Mormonism as a form of Christianity, and Mormonism rejects most other groups as well.
Of course, the question of who gets to define the term "Christian" is a complex one, but if you let the majority of people who apply it to themselves also be the ones who define it, then it probably doesn't include Mormonism.
Also, one other telling difference is that most Christian groups use only the Bible as their sacred text. Mormonism also has the Book of Mormon, which (as I understand it) takes precedence in case the two disagree. The only other major difference between sacred texts within Christianity is over the exact canonization of the books within the Bible. Catholics have a few more than Protestants, and there are a few other differences here and there. But this is a comparatively minor difference: all books that Protestants and Catholics disagree on are from the same historical time period, and the disagreement is really more about authenticity and authorship than anything. If you categorize groups based on what their sacred text is, Mormonism has about as much similarity to Christianity as Islam has.
Parent
Mormons are Christians (Score:5, Interesting)
Mormons believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
What more does it take to be called Christian? Christians are followers of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.
From the Articles of Faith [lds.org] :
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
Many Mormon charity and humanitarian groups work hand in hand with Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and other religious and non religious groups.
I am a Christian and a Mormon. Some of my closest friends are atheists. I work with and respect people of all faiths.
Parent
Re:Mormons are Christians (Score:5, Interesting)
As to why people don't take Mormonism seriously...well, two reasons. Everyone who's not a Christian sees the history of your church from Joe Smith on and says "Holy crap, who could fall for that? Gold plates from the ground that no one else was allowed to see? An angel named Moroni? I can't make this stuff up!" And everyone else who believes in the Bible and not the Book of Mormon takes a look at Revelation 22:18 and says "Hey! Saying that we 'misinterpreted' parts of the Bible and adding to it via the Book of Mormon is exactly what John said to look out for!"
Now I'll follow this up with a statement that I live in SLC, and know some pretty kick-ass Mormons. I'm not trying to harp on them, but really, there's enough of a schism to warrent debate about the status of Christianity. "We agree with the word of God except in the places where we disagree with him" doesn't seem, to me, to be a horridly valid argument.
Parent
Re:Mormons are Christians (Score:5, Insightful)
What more does it take to be called Christian? Christians are followers of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.
"Orthodox" Christians are Trinitarian and follow the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not, therefore they are not "orthodox" Christians but heretics as defined be the universal catholic church (by this I mean the Roman Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and most Protestants). Mormons follow a prophet and holy texts that contradict large sections of the New Testament and who are specifically rejected by the universal catholic church as frauds.
In fact, from a doctrinal point of view, the Mormon faith sits in a very similar position as Islam. Muslims accept the validity of Jesus as a prophet, but reject the Trinity and instead follow a later prophet and his holy texts.
So Mormons are Christian pretty much in the same way that Muslims are Christian.
Parent
Re:Other arguments against Christians. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Other arguments against Christians. (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't that bad. Some of the newer versions hashed out the major problems. Somethings already were well enough accepted to be unfixable. Young woman being translated into virgin, using the name of the lord in vain rather than in a false oath. NIV might be better, but when referring to inaccuracies... many of them are not translation errors. They are contradictory in the original text as well.
>>and because the original texts in the original languages are much more available to common people than in the 1600's (I believe that's the right century...),
Actually the original texts in the original languages are just as unavailable as ever. We still don't have a copy of the original, not even a copy of a copy in the right language. We have a huge number of different versions from the 4th century which differ widely from each other. We also have some earlier fragments which also differ pretty widely.
>>they can't exactly hide any intentional mistranslations anymore- there are enough (though not a whole lot)
They didn't hide them exactly. For example, 2 Samuel 21:19, typically have the version (KJV) italicize "brother of" because the words "brother of" is simply added regardless of not being in the original text. They obviously realized that Elhanan killing Goliath would clash with the same story of David killing the same person. Other translations go ahead and ignore that and have Goliath die twice (as happens in the original text).
>>And I'd have to disagree with your thesis that the Red Sea scrolls would be more accurate gospels than the ones we have today, since the scrolls contained only copies of the Torah and other books which are now part of the Old Testament
The Red Sea scrolls have less editing than the modern versions we have. Accuracy is completely different as they all pretty well depict events that we are more and more sure did not happen. Archeology tends to disagree with the Bible when the two meet.
>>and make absolutely no mention in Christ, as they were for the most part written before his ministry.
The work dates to the late first century early second century. They are all written after "Christ's ministry" (mythicist quotes) -- Though, they probably do predate the Gospels which were written mid-second century or so.
>>They do, however confirm the accuracy of Old Testament texts to at least Jesus' time, which was heartening for Christians and Jews.
They no more confirm the accuracy of the OT than finding a first printing of Great Expectations would prove the existence of Pip.
>>basically the equivalent of Jesus saying to love your neighbor, then turning around and commanding his disciples to stone the prostitute,
The "don't throw stones" story is actually added in the 4th century.
>>Oh, and I was not under the impression that Allah would have told Jesus to tell everyone he was the son of God, if he were only a prophet secondary in importance to Mohammad who would come later.
Muslims do not hold that Jesus was the son of God, nor that Allah would have told him to say such. Rather that people later made that claim as they were misguided.
>>Of course I also don't understand why Mohammed's followers would want to destroy those who follow another of Allah's prophets as infidels.
You don't? Well, because Muslims are not followers of Mohammad. They are followers of Allah. If they were worshiping Muhammad they would be idolaters. Just as worshiping any prophet of Allah would be idolatry. Further, those who deify Jesus are accused by the Koran of making "Partners unto Allah" -- beyond idolatry this is blasphemy. Both are punishable by death. A quick read of the Koran would answer these questions for you.
>>I know the Christians haven't ex
Parent
Re:Other arguments against Christians. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/user/NickGisburne2000 [youtube.com]
The full story is on there. If someone in Slashdot can change the story link to go there, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Nick Gisburne
Parent